Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <> | Date | Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:12:20 +0100 | Subject | Re: anticipatory scheduling questions |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:14:18 -0800 To: "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> Subject: Re: anticipatory scheduling questions > "Felipe Alfaro Solana" <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org> wrote: > > I have done so: Evolution is a complex application with many interdependencies and is > > not very prone to launch diagnostic messages to the console. Anyways, I haven't seen > > any diagnostic message in the console. I still think there is something in the AS I/O scheduler > > that is not working at full read throughput. Of course I'm no expert. > > It certainly does appear that way. But you observed the same runtime > with the deadline scheduler. Or was that a typo? > > > > 2.4.20-2.54 -> 9s > > > 2.5.63-mm1 w/Deadline -> 34s > > > 2.5.63-mm1 w/AS -> 33s It wasn't a typo... In fact, both deadline and AS give roughly the same timings (one second up or down). But I still don't understand why 2.5 is performing so much worse than 2.4. Could a "vmstat" or "iostat" dump be interesting? -- ______________________________________________ http://www.linuxmail.org/ Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |